After learning of State spending on an incomplete software update of $250 million, when audits are implemented, we need to include 3rd party contractors, because they're raping the American people.
The Epoch Times: Corporations Are Losing the ESG Battle, Forcing Them to Hide Advocacy
By Kevin Stocklin March 08, 2024 Updated: March 12, 2024
Wall Street titans appear to be having an increasingly hard time reconciling the conflicting goals of progressive activism and shareholder returns.
Until recently, many banks, asset managers, and insurers portrayed these goals as complementary, asserting that climate risk is financial risk and that the competence of management can be assessed by its commitment to social justice goals.
Today, however, those narratives are rarely heard.
BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, and State Street recently exited from Climate Action 100+, a coalition of the world’s largest fund managers that pledges to “ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.”
On the heels of that exit, 16 conservative state attorneys general have demanded answers from BlackRock’s directors regarding the firm’s continued membership in other similar groups, which they assert could be a conflict of interest with its fiduciary responsibility to investors.
“We applaud BlackRock’s reevaluation of its status [with Climate Action 100+],” the attorneys general wrote in a Feb. 27 letter to BlackRock’s directors, “but we also note that BlackRock remains a member of other groups such the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative (‘NZAM’), the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (‘UNPRI’), and Ceres.”
Republican state officials praised a recent trend of banks’, fund managers’, and insurance companies’ departures from climate clubs. However, they question whether the Wall Street firms are actually changing direction or simply changing optics.
“I’m afraid nothing has really changed other than the public’s stance,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told The Epoch Times.
“But what really concerns me is that, if what these groups and these asset managers were doing was so righteous, why are they running from it now?”
Mr. Knudsen led the efforts to draft the letter to BlackRock directors.
Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia also signed the letter.
Power in Hands of a Few
At the center of the controversy is that so many corporate shares are owned by a relatively small number of financial firms.
According to a 2019 study in the Harvard Business Review, institutional investors—asset managers, insurance companies, banks, and state pension funds—owned 80 percent of the shares in the S&P 500 index of the United States’ largest companies.
“One of either BlackRock, Vanguard, or State Street is the largest shareholder in 88 percent of S&P 500 companies [and] they are the three largest owners of most DOW 30 companies,” the report states.
This concentration of power has raised concerns, particularly when the firms pledge to work in unison to target fossil fuel companies.
Critics argue that the issue is not only how institutional fund managers invest clients’ money, but also how they vote the corporate shares that they own on their clients’ behalf.
Climate Action 100+ has boasted of having a 75 percent success rate in compelling target companies to get on board with the net-zero agenda.
Although many financial firms have also been pursuing climate and social-justice goals and are also members in climate-activist alliances, BlackRock has been a lightning rod for criticism on this issue, largely because of its size and outspoken support for those goals.
BlackRock is the world’s largest asset management company, with about $10 trillion in assets under management.
“They’re involved in a lot of pension systems, and a lot of state investment systems, and I think they’re getting the most attention because they’ve got the most assets,” Mr. Knudsen said. “But I think other similar groups should take notice of this, and we’re hoping they do.”
BlackRock said it’s in the process of reviewing the letter from the attorneys general but disputes the allegations of conflicts of interest.
“BlackRock and its funds’ Boards of Trustees act in full accordance with their fiduciary obligations and in the best interests of all fund shareholders,” Christopher van Es, director of corporate communications at BlackRock, told The Epoch Times.
BlackRock has also refuted the charge that it has disinvested from the oil and gas industry.
In December 2022, Dalia Blass, BlackRock’s head of external affairs, testified before the Texas state Senate, “We participate in Climate Action 100 to engage in dialogue with other participants, market participants, [and] governments so that we understand issues that are relevant to our clients.” Ms. Blass denied that BlackRock pressured companies to go along with the alliance’s climate agenda.
Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes, a Republican, responded: “BlackRock’s website says, ‘We have joined Climate Action 100 to help ensure the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.’”
Texas state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst told BlackRock at the hearing that she prefers Texas not to do business with the firm because it and the Lone Star state have “different goals.”
“Maybe you can’t serve two masters,” she said.
Activism Can Also Be Risky
In his 2022 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink wrote that “stakeholder capitalism” had replaced shareholder capitalism as the guiding principle, and that “most stakeholders—from shareholders to employees, to customers, to communities, and regulators—now expect companies to play a role in decarbonizing the global economy.” “Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world,” he stated. “The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?”
In 2020, under pressure from climate activists, Mr. Fink pledged that his firm’s actively managed funds would divest from any company that earns more than 25 percent of its revenue from coal.
Four years later, while climate risk was once portrayed as financial risk, climate activism is now seen to have its own set of risks.
In its latest SEC 10-K filing, BlackRock stated that its support for the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) movement was a material risk factor for its shareholders. Some conservative states have boycotted BlackRock for alleged harm to oil, gas, and coal companies while left-leaning states have pressured BlackRock to be even more activist.
In December 2023, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti brought a consumer-protection lawsuit against BlackRock, charging that the company “has been on the forefront of using aggressive strategies to push controversial environmental, social, and governance” goals and failed to properly inform investors about its actions.
The possibility of antitrust actions against climate alliance members has also been raised because of their coordinated targeting of other companies and industries.
“If BlackRock is not able to successfully manage ESG-related expectations across varied stakeholder interests, it may adversely affect BlackRock’s reputation, ability to attract and retain clients, employees, shareholders, and business partners or result in litigation, legal or governmental action, which may cause its AUM [assets under management], revenue, and earnings to decline,” the filing states.
“Any perceived or actual action or lack thereof, or perceived lack of transparency, by BlackRock on matters subject to scrutiny, such as ESG, may be viewed differently by various stakeholders and adversely impact BlackRock’s reputation and business, including through redemptions or terminations by clients, and legal and governmental action and scrutiny.”
Many other companies, including Target, Anheuser-Busch, and Disney, are now facing a backlash and underperforming share prices from taking on controversial political causes.
Like BlackRock, Disney stated in its recent SEC filing, “Consumers’ perceptions ... of our environmental and social goals often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”
Caught in the Middle
Having cast their lots with progressive causes, however, many firms now find it difficult to extricate themselves. After BlackRock, JPMorgan, and State Street dropped out of the Climate Action 100+ group, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander lambasted the firms.
“By caving into the demands of right-wing politicians funded by the fossil fuel industry and backing out of their commitment to Climate Action 100+, these enormous financial institutions are failing in their fiduciary duty and putting trillions of dollars of their clients’ assets at risk,” Mr. Lander stated.
“Three years ago, Larry Fink declared that climate risk is financial risk, but today’s announcement makes a mockery of that recognition.
“Putting clients who take climate risk seriously in their own small silo, while voting most of BlackRock’s shares against even the most minimal climate disclosures, is a failure of both leadership and fiduciary duty.”
Mr. Lander, who has discretion over where the city’s pension money is invested, threatened the financial giants with disinvestment.
“We are in the process of reviewing how well our managers are aligned in that approach and will consider our options for the management of our public market investments,” he stated.
State attorneys general noted that conflict in their recent letter, stating that “BlackRock may also be unduly influenced by large public pension funds that wish to use their capital for political purposes rather than maximizing financial return.”
Mr. Knudsen said attorneys general have been seeking answers regarding where BlackRock stands on climate and social justice issues and how that affects its actions as a fund manager and shareholder, but so far he said they have received conflicting statements and “non-responses.”
“You’re saying one thing in public and you’re saying another thing in your disclosure statements,” he said.
“You’ve got affiliations with known radical groups—the U.N. Principles for Responsible Investment, Ceres, Net Zero Asset Managers—but then you say to your investors, ‘Well, we’re not going to be focused on that.’”
Mr. Knudsen and his fellow attorneys general are requesting written responses to their questions by March 26.
Was reading article about Super Tuesday (link below) and had epiphany of why haley would stay in race even when it was obvious she didn't stand even a glimmer of a chance.
She was there so Democrats could cross over and create an illusion that she had more support than she actually does. We knew this.
However, she was also there because, even though Biden has no one opposing him in the primaries, Democrats are voting "non-committed" rather than placing a vote for him. Having Haley in the Republican primary allowed these never Trumpers to cross over and vote for Haley rather than casting "non-commited" votes or merely not showing up at all. In this manner disguising how abysmal the support for Biden actually is.
They needed this illusion for the steal in Nov.
Twitter post Dr. Simon Goddek @goddeketal Did you know that Bill Gates' primary residence in Seattle boasts 7 bedrooms, 24 bathrooms, a 60-foot pool with an underwater music system, a 2,500-square-foot gym, a 1,000-square-foot dining room, six kitchens, and a trampoline room with a 20-foot ceiling? And let's not forget the 2,100-square-foot library, a home theater that seats up to 20 guests, and a massive 300-square-foot reception hall with room for 200 guests. And there's also a spacious guesthouse, a garage that fits 23 cars, and an artificial stream stocked with fish.
Depending on the source, its value is estimated at $127 to $170 million. But wait, there's more! Gates also owns homes in Del Mar, California at sea level ($43 million), Indian Wells, California ($12.5 million), Wellington, Florida ($8.7 million), and a ranch in Wyoming ($8.9 million).
A fun little tidbit about his Florida property: In 2016, he paid $13.5 million for the neighboring house. Rumor has it he's also bought four other properties on the same street, making him the sole resident of the entire block.
In addition, Bill Gates has ironically splurged $650 million on 'Aqua', a luxurious super yacht. This extravagant purchase, complete with lavish amenities, starkly contrasts his public stance on environmental conservation. Gates' Aqua, a symbol of opulence, raises questions about the sincerity behind his environmental advocacy.
And the hypocrisy does not stop there. Just as Gates allegedly advocates for the environment while doing the exact opposite, he has behaved in a 'supposedly selfless' manner during the alleged global health crisis of the past four years. For instance, in September 2019, he invested $55 million in BioNTech, a company then only recording losses, coincidentally months before the outbreak of an alleged pandemic.
This vaccine, produced by BioNTech and Pfizer, would reduce transmissions and deaths, Bill claimed, only to sell 86% of his cheaply acquired shares two years later for hundreds of millions of dollars. 'Purely by chance,' Gates had also previously invested in Moderna. By his own admission, he turned 1 billion dollars in health industry investments into 20 billion.
Trusting someone who funds the WHO more than entire nations, predicts a viral pandemic, and then profits from it, is like believing a firefighter who predicts every single fire. Often, such people are more the cause of problems than the solutions.
Coming back to his real estates and his luxury yacht: Isn't it ironic that one of the main proponents of reducing our carbon footprint lives like this? With such an expansive estate and luxurious lifestyle, we can't help but wonder how much his own carbon footprint is ballooning.
If the people who are urging us to reduce our carbon footprints are living lives of excess, how can we trust their motivations and the validity of their claims about man-made climate change?
Cheers, Dr. Simon
P.S. Oh yes, and let's not forget the curious case of chiIdp0rn discovered on his private property in 2014, where it seems one of his employees might have conveniently been the fall guy. Plus, his 37 visits to Epstein Island? Purely coincidental, of course - much like his investments right before the pandemic.
P.P.S. Bill Gates has also bought up 110,000 hectares of farmland while pushing for soy products and fake meat, which really makes you wonder why.
Just saw a post on X that showed that the ashes of human bodies could be turned into diamonds. I didn't believe it, ran a search and apparently it IS a thing. 😶
As the X post points out, could this in fact be "where the bodies are"? 🤔
Military personal info being sold
Data being sold include information about military members’ children, their health conditions, interest in gambling, political affiliation, and religion.
Sensitive personal information of active and veteran military members is being sold by U.S. data brokers that could pose a potential threat to national security, according to a recent report by Duke University.
“It is not difficult to obtain sensitive data about active-duty members of the military, their families, and veterans, including non-public, individually identified, and sensitive data, such as health data, financial data, and information about religious practices,” the Nov. 6 report said. The research team purchased details via data brokers for as low as 12 cents per record. Even the location data of military members were available for purchase. “Access to this data could be used by foreign and malicious actors to target active-duty military personnel, veterans, and their families and acquaintances for profiling, blackmail, targeting with information campaigns, and more,” the report warned. The information in the dataset included: Personal details like name, home address, email, specific branch and/or agency (active duty only), wireless phone numbers, age, gender, ethnicity, language, occupation, and levels of education. Family information like marital status, presence of children at home, numbers of children, ages of children, sexes of children. Ideological information like political affiliation, religion, interest in charitable donations, interest in current affairs/politics. Financial information like income, net worth, credit rating, homeowner/renter status, home value, and interest in gambling/casinos. Medical details like ailments and health conditions. “Several data broker websites advertise data on military families, with dataset titles such as ‘Military Families Mailing List’ and ‘Hard Core Military Families,’” the report said. None of the datasets purchased by the team were anonymized, even when brokers provided sensitive information to unverified buyers.
The datasets cost between $0.12 and $0.32 per record when buying roughly 5,000 to 15,000 records at a time. For much larger purchases, the costs go down to as little as $0.01.
In an interview with public media outlet Marketplace, Justin Sherman, a senior fellow at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy who led the study, gave an example of how financial data collected from such brokers could be weaponized against the country.
“If you’re trying to identify people in debt, that could be really, really dangerous from a national security perspective if you can identify, target, and then blackmail particular people,” he said.
For their analysis, the team scraped through 533 data brokers’ websites, contacted 12 of them, and eventually bought from three sellers. Uncontrolled Data Brokerage Industry The study highlighted the issue of an absence of government control over the data brokering industry. “We found a lack of robust controls when asking some data brokers about buying data on the U.S. military,” the study said. One broker told the research team that they would have to verify their identity before selling data on military personnel. However, this restriction was applicable when paying for data via credit card. For wire payments, such restrictions were not in place. The team then paid by wire and the broker provided the data without any identity verification.
One broker refused to sell geolocation data around sensitive locations like military sites. However, this broker was willing to sell geolocation data in other regions of the United States. Two brokers refused to sell owing to the research team not being a verified business.
The team also bought datasets while using an IP address from another country. “Our team selected Singapore in our initial grant proposal because of its tech industry and important geopolitical position between the U.S. and China. All of the brokers responded to our requests.”
“For several of the brokers … the controls in place were primarily focused on requiring confidentiality around the data purchasing itself and to make certain the customer was a company.”
The report called on Congress to pass a “comprehensive U.S. privacy law,” with strong controls on the American data brokerage industry. It also asked the Defense Department to “assess the risks from data brokerage in its contracts.”
“For example, the Department of Defense could reserve the right to restrict a contractor’s sale of any data, related to the contract or otherwise, to external entities throughout the contract period and restrict the future sale of data to entities that was obtained due to the contract.”
Threat to Security The study has triggered alarm bells among U.S. lawmakers. “This report further solidifies the need to address this gaping hole in the protection of U.S. servicemembers,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), according to NBC News. “We must act in the interest of national security and protect those who defend our nation.” Sen. Ron Wyden, (D-Ore.) called the findings a “sobering wake-up call for policymakers that the data broker industry is out of control and poses a serious threat to U.S. national security.”
A January 2022 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence also raised similar concerns. It focused on the threat posed by “Commercially Available Information” (CAI). “The volume and sensitivity of CAI have expanded in recent years, mainly due to the advancement of digital technology, including location-tracking and other features of smartphones and other electronic devices, and the advertising-based monetization models that underlie many commercial offerings available on the Internet,” it said.
Since CAI is available to the general public, including adversaries of the United States, such data raise counter-intelligence risks for the U.S. Intelligence Community, the report stated.
Naveen Athrappully Naveen Athrappully Author
